In the conclusion of his article on "The Euro", Christopher Hitchens writes: "Esperanto aimed to replace the Babel of competing languages with one universal tongue, and it succeeded only in adding an extra tongue that was a mere hybrid". It's not clear whether this statement is the author's or Jörg Haider's, but it might be worth putting the record straight. Esperanto has never aimed at being a universal tongue or at replacing other languages, which makes Haider's phrase "Esperanto money" irrelevant. Its aim has always been to serve as a modest intermediary among people with different language backgrounds. In that function it succeeds remarkably well.

"A mere hybrid" ? If you proceed to a linguistic analysis of Esperanto and other languages you're forced to conclude that Esperanto is much, very much more homogeneous than, say, English. The possibility of having two different sounds for one letter (English "gin" and "get"), two different letters for one sound ("king" / "can"), or derivations based on another set of languages ("king" / "royal" ; "tooth" / "dentist") is unthinkable in Esperanto. English, with its tendency to accept two words from different origins for just one concept (buy / purchase, liberty / freedom, unavoidable / inevitable, read / peruse, threat / menace, etc.), is probably the most hybrid language in the world.

Comparing the euro to Esperanto is nonsense. The euro was meant to replace national currencies, or at least a number of national currencies. Esperanto has never been meant to replace national (or regional) languages. The only tongue it is meant to replace is the elementary broken English which serves as a low level communication language in most intercultural situations. On the other hand, was the Euro actually supposed to "eliminate differences", as stated in the last sentence of the article? I don't think so. It was meant to simplify transactions and to facilitate life and price comparisons among Europeans, a purpose which has been attained.

As far as Esperanto is concerned, its aim has never been to eliminate differences, which users of the language consider a precious cultural and human richness. It aims at emphasizing and preserving differences, by giving mankind an international means of communication that is fully respectful of other languages and cultures, and in which people can understand one another while remaining themselves. When you get acquainted with the Esperanto world, you discover a human environment in which differences are more emphasized, and identities more marked, than in other international settings. Yet you also observe that mutual understanding is far better achieved in that milieu than anywhere else. Maybe this paradox would be worth some in-depth consideration in a future issue of Foreign Policy.